Hate F**king Does Not Equal Rape

Posted by: Amelia McDonell-Parry Filed in: sex, video
7:00AM, Thursday June 4th 2009

Comments (15)

On yesterday’s episode of “The View,” Elisabeth Hasselbeck responded to the Playboy.com article written by Guy Cimbalo that listed her as one of the conservative women he’d like to “hate f**k.” I don’t blame her for being offended—I would pitch a fit if, say, Rush Limbaugh said he wanted to hate f**k me—but her annoyance that the National Organization for Women didn’t immediately respond (in fact, they didn’t know) is misplaced. After all, they have bigger fish to fry right now, like the murder of doctors like Dr. George Tiller.

However, NOW did eventually release a statement that said the Playboy article encourages violence against women. And then “The View”‘s Sherri Shephard went on to equate “hate f**k” with rape. This bugs me. Where I come from, hate f**king is not the same as raping someone. In every instance that I’ve used it or someone I know has used it, it has been in reference to having consensual sex with someone you just cannot stand, but you want to f**k for fun anyway, and that the animosity between you actually makes the sex hot in a way that’s different from sex with someone you love or like. You may want to call them horrible names afterwards, or never see them again, but hate f**king, in any definition I’ve experienced, has never been about sexual assault. In fact, I have a friend who hate f**ked an ex recently and had a grand ol’ time.

Of course, Hasselbeck doesn’t want to hate f**k Cimbalo, so if he actually followed through on his stupid little list, then I suppose it would be rape, but for the love of god, it is a LIST not a PLAN. It’s an offensive, gross, icky list, sure, and the sex he’s describing is hugely disrespectful and misogynistic, but it’s not rape.

You might like:

Casting “The Real Celebrity Housewives of Hollywood” (PopEater)

Tags: rape, playboy, elisabeth hasselbeck, the view, guy cimbalo, hate f**k

Comments (15)

comments

jojo32
wrote on June 4 2009 @ 07:08 am: [report]

Right on Amelia.

EastCoastMale
wrote on June 4 2009 @ 07:25 am: [report]

I had never even heard the term hate f**k until now, but after reading the article I definitely think there is a difference. That being said, wanting to F someone just for fun seems like an actual hidden desire for someone that the person wants to package in a different way and act like they dont care. Thats just me, Im sure many will disagree but people I TRULY cant stand I would want nothing to do with, there are some people that get on my nerves but I secretly want to pull their hair lol

CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on June 4 2009 @ 07:34 am: [report]

This sounds like Grudge F*cking to me.

retro chic
wrote on June 4 2009 @ 08:04 am: [report]

Gee, well I guess I don’t need to read the article, then. I am no dictionary hurler, but, since the term is officially undefined, the foremost (anti)authority Urban Dictionary [tic] UNofficially defines “hate f**king” as:
* “The act of f**king a person that you despise…”
* “To f**k a person for revenge.”
* “With the woman’s consent; to use your dick (or some other object) to pound the living daylights out of a pussy, a$$hole, mouth, ear, eye socket, or nostril attached to woman you hate with the fire of a thousand suns. Just this side of rape or sexual assault.”
Note: In all cases UD cited man-on-woman examples—nary a woman-on-man.

So, you’re absolutely right on a TKO—it is not rape. One tiny thing: the “informed” consensual part is a little fuzzy: The “consenting” woman doesn’t know she signed up for the hate f**king part, only the f**king. It is very clear, tho, what the HF-ers premeditated motive is. Seldom is Human Nature expressed in the Black & White—mainly in the grey areas where most misogynist and pre-criminal behavior lie. It makes it *so* much easier now to ingest this kind of thought and behavior as acceptable, and immune to societal reproach.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hate+#&@$%

Perceptible
wrote on June 4 2009 @ 08:36 am: [report]

I had never heard this term before either, and I’m thankful that I have gone 39 years without having encountered anyone who would use that type of term, or have that kind of thought (that I know of). How terribly sad that anyone, anywhere, would have that kind of feeling toward another person. It’s disgusting no matter how you slice it. And while it seems that there is a distinction between HF and rape, the line seems pretty fuzzy to me. Why anyone would want to get anywhere near that line is a mystery to me. I’m not a fan of EH, but I thought her response was pretty spot on.

majicksand
wrote on June 4 2009 @ 12:28 pm: [report]

Don’t worry Perceptible, I’m 36 and don’t know the term either. I’m just guessing, but it seems to describe being pyhsically attracted while being mentally repulsed. You know, when you see a guy across a room and think “wow” then talk to him for 30 seconds and it changes to “eww”.

Women can be just as shallow as men. I’ve never heard or used the term, but I have met guys who would qualify as absolutely yummy if only they were mute.

writergirl
wrote on June 4 2009 @ 12:45 pm: [report]

I’m 36 and its the first time I’ve come across the term as well. But from a contextual standpoint—I see hate f***ing as a ‘can’t stand her personality, but love her body” type of situation, not something one wants to do for revenge, which is what it sounds like the guy who wrote the article was talking about.

Regardless, its absolutely disgusting.

majicksand
wrote on June 4 2009 @ 01:09 pm: [report]

Just to clarify, I didn’t mean to imply that hate f***ing was a good thing. I only meant that most of us have seen someone we found attractive until they spoke.

Jessica Wakeman
wrote on June 4 2009 @ 02:36 pm: [report]

Well said, Amelia.

eskim00ninja
wrote on June 4 2009 @ 11:37 pm: [report]

If something is close enough to rape it makes it rape.

Even if someone committed manslaughter, someone is still dead.

If a person is HF’d and realized it don’t you think it would do the mental damage rape does? Maybe even the physical damage it does also.

To sum it up, HF-ing is such a grey area…if a person is okay with the idea of it, HF-ing isn’t rape. If a person is not okay with it, ITS RAPE.

The End.

VivienneMax
wrote on June 5 2009 @ 02:22 am: [report]

So let me get this straight: if you consent to sex and the person you are having sex with doesn’t really like you, cannot stand you, maybe even has a secret (or not so secret) rage for you as a person…and you have sex and all goes as planned.
Then when you call later he says “yeah, no. I cannot stand you, I effin hate you” Then you’ve been….raped?

You might feel used, degraded and angry but I dont think it comes near to actual rape.

There are plenty of times that two people get together and then one finds out something they are not okay with…he was sleeping with another girl, he had an STD, he was using you for sex, he actually hates your guts….but that doesnt mean it’s rape.

It makes the guy a creep. But if anything…if you dont want to deal with this then perhaps only have relations with guys who you have a real connection with.

PS. For the record, I am only refering to instances where the sex that took place was consentual.

bbpickles
wrote on June 5 2009 @ 11:09 am: [report]

Barbara is right, now I wana read this article!

MSK
wrote on June 14 2009 @ 02:03 pm: [report]

I agree, hate f-ing certainly cannot be called rape. I think more at issue here is the fact that women in the public media are constantly being referenced to in terms of their sexual desirability. Women fall into two categories in our society- hot or not hot. I know that men are often viewed this way too, but I feel like an intelligent or talented man can often avoid scrutiny if they don’t also look like a model. However, since Elizabeth Hasselback is neither intelligent nor talented, and only is on this show because she is cute, I don’t know that I care too much that someone from playboy wants to hate f her. Sorry, there are much bigger things to worry about. That being said, I’m glad they took down the article.

TheCatsPyjamas
wrote on June 15 2009 @ 06:57 pm: [report]

I do agree the issue is that it is degrading to reduce women in public positions to sex objects. I think it’s also a problematic article to write in that many won’t know the term hatefuck and will take it as it sounds - #&@$% someone with hatred - and I think there is a certain responsibility attached to anything that will reasonably be misunderstood. Additionally, putting the idea into print makes it a far less innocuous one. It’s a concept best left in conversation with a few trusted friends who get the concept. Even minus the ‘hate’, there is a big difference between telling a friend you want to #&@$% a certain celebrity and publishing it. It changes it from discussing your desires to thinking it’s media-worthy to discuss which women are desirable to you. Add in the prefix ‘hate’ and the onesideness that would be objectifiying now feels predatory too.

However, I don’t think it’s fair for the women of the view to say hatefuck=rape, and they should have been careful to be sure this was true before accusing this writer of saying he wants to rape these women.

BTW, people on Urban Dictionary go out of their way to write something shocking and outrageous, and it’s often the case that even the majority of submitted definitions for a particular term don’t reflect the term’s meaning. It is possible of course that the term hatefuck has been misunderstood and distorted, and now holds a darker meaning for some. But its real meaning is as has been stated in this article and some of the comments - consensual sex where NEITHER person can stand each other. It’s not meant to be degrading either - that you secretly hate the person and get some power by having sex with them without them knowing of your ill feeling toward them. The concept is a mutual distaste for each other, but attraction despite this, with a predicted extra sexual spark because of this passionate repulsion/attraction dynamic.